Forget gun control, how about “Fifth” control

Before I get on with this week’s article, I want to add something I didn’t say last week. When I mentioned some of the times The Obama has inserted himself in situations in pretty much the worst way possible, I neglected to talk about the one time in the past when he did counsel patience, restraint, and a full investigation before assigning motives to anyone. I noted that the (not so secret) secret service scandal seems an odd time for The Obama to start practicing tolerance, self control, and a reliance on the various investigative arms of the American legal system (of course you know I’m describing the pre-Eric Holder Justice Department). Be that as it may, there was one past event when he actually was full of patience and understanding. That particular instance would be when a known radical islamist army officer stormed into a building on an American military reservation (A.K.A. known as Fort Hood) and started gunning down everybody he could shoot while shouting “allah akbar”. Far be it from me to just jump out there and call the shooter a terrorist or islamic extremist without waiting patiently for all of the facts. However if it hadn’t been for The Barack stepping in to guide us after that horrible act, why, I would have just assumed that anybody who had known radical islamic tendencies and took it upon themselves to kill as many Americans as they could, while shouting an (islamic) suicide bomber slogan, was an islamic extremist.As far as I know, The Obama is still counseling us to withhold judgment in this case. I guess my wish for the re-introduction of the firing squad for this particular perpetrator shows I’m clearly not very enlightened.Okay, enough about that, what I wanted to talk about this week is how the liberals feel about a few (actually most, but I’m going to stick with just a few of them) of the Amendments to the United States Constitution (the best governing document ever written, thank you very much). At first glance, you would think that the left really loves the First Amendment. After all, they seem so attached to it that they even had flag burning added to the free speech portion of it. In fact, we think so much of free speech in the U.S. that we even allow the Westboro Baptist Church (I don’t consider that an actual church, but we have to call it something) to practice their heinous act of denigrating and belittling fallen United States Military personnel at their funerals. Just to make this issue crystal clear, the absolute necessity for true unrestricted free speech is well understood by the general public at large, especially on the right. Even when the Westboro morons are shrieking and protesting, the only restraint placed on them is to keep them as far away from the funeral as possible. Since the Westboro group is often shadowed by bikers, whose sole purpose is to keep them away from the funeral, and nobody gets assaulted, I would have to say that even a group of bikers understands the need for free speech.Even further (actually freedom of religion is before freedom of speech) into the First Amendment, the left likes to try to use it as a bludgeon they wield to keep any mention of the Christian religion out of our society. Of course, they claim what they are after is merely the mythical “separation of Church and State”. That may be the claim, but I think their actual goal is separation of American citizens and Christianity. Since they are just as quick to take up for the islamic religion as they are to “put down” the Christian religion, somehow I don’t think their motives are as pure as the driven snow.So, having said all of that, it would certainly seem that this is the one place where both the right and the left can agree. At last, a true bipartisan spot where both sides can co-exist in peace, comfort, and harmony. At least, it would seem that way until someone on the right speaks up on an issue, and then, the left suddenly finds a need to limit free speech. Progressives clothe their assault on free speech in many different ways, in fact some of them sound very reasonable. After all, if you didn’t know better why would you possibly think that something named the fairness doctrine is actually about limiting free speech? They really ought to change the name of that one to the anti-Limbaugh doctrine. It doesn’t sound as catchy, but it’s a lot closer to what it’s really about.Another nice sounding thing the left does is to have “free speech zones” on college campuses. What on earth could possibly be wrong with that you say? Nothing except that if they have a need for an area where you can indulge in unmolested free speech, that means there are other areas of the campus where it isn’t allowed. Thus a more correct way would be to name those restricted areas “non-free speech zones”. Since these campuses exist in the United States, where I might remind readers free speech is (for now) the law of the land, I find it curious that we need designated free speech zones on these campuses.Another amendment the left finds very uncomfortable is the Second. If it weren’t for the fact that the Second Amendment is written so clearly and is so straight forward that even a second grader has no trouble understanding its meaning, the left would have done away with this amendment long ago. Now, I know that very often what is put forward is the premise that it is not meant to deal with private citizens, but only with militia. The truth is, if it wasn’t so clear and easy to understand, you can bet the anti-gun crowd would have twisted its meaning into something else entirely. For those of you who don’t agree, look at all of the things that have been “found” in the commerce clause.I could go on with the things that the left finds inconvenient about the various amendments, or for that matter most of the actual constitution, but believe it or not, there is one amendment they seem to really love. In fact, the way things are going right now, this particular amendment is getting a real work out by the left.So what is the one part of the Constitution that truly does appeal to the left? Why, oddly enough, it seems to be the Fifth Amendment. I caught a few minutes of one of the (ex) GSA administrators receiving a grilling, and he seemed to have the "fifth amendment switch" on full auto. Seriously, shouldn't there be a limit on the "clip size" when the Fifth Amendment is used? Shouldn't you have to answer one question after you've pled the Fifth Amendment fifteen times in a row? In fact, now that I think about it, shouldn't there be a waiting period before you're allowed to exercise your Fifth Amendment rights? That way the government would have time to do a background check and make sure that you are actually entitled to Fifth Amendment rights before you "arm" yourself with them.Say, do you suppose the former darling of the left, John Edwards, who I might remind you ran for both President and Vice President as a Democrat, is walking into a courtroom somewhere right now carrying a "concealed Fifth Amendment"? Shouldn't courthouse security be checking these people before they can enter the building? Heaven forbid some citizen should be able to get an unauthorized copy of the Fifth Amendment into a courthouse. Or even worse, the fully automatic assault version of the United States Constitution. Imagine the legal carnage if someone were to pull one of those out and start forcing the court to adhere to it.I would say it's funny how the left picks and chooses what parts of the Constitution they like, except there's nothing humorous about it (well, I could get a kick out of watching John Edwards squirm). Sadly, the progressive's assault on the Constitution is not new. What is new, and very alarming, is how openly the left in general, and Obama in particular, eschew the limits placed on them by the very document that is the basis for our government and of the great republic that is the United States of America.Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at